Dallas at 13 sounds pretty feasible though. They need cap relief, and we can eat Marion's contract outright, although I believe he has said that he won't report for a non-contender.

I also like the idea of getting Pau Gasol for a year, but I think Windy and Simmons are absurd thinking that he would require first round picks! We are saving them what, $80M in total taxes and salary, so I think he could be had for a 2nd rounder. Might even be able to snag a future first from the Lakers to take that albatross off their hands.

Tell ya what: P. Gasol's best years are behind him, but this season he was still good for 13 and 8, shooting 47%. Not sure he wouldn't give the current youngsters some stability. Besides his salary, his only drawback would be defense, which would not especially endear him to Roker. But he still might look good coming off the bench in the wine-and-gold, especially if it would mean only a future 2nd-rounder from us to them. (It's not like Grant hasn't stockpiled draft choices.) If I were Grant, I might whisper something in Mitch Kupchak's ear.

Moving from 19 to 4 would be very expensive, but if there was ever a team in better position to pay the bill it's this one.

Question for the cognoscenti here: I know when you swap players the salaries have to mach up at least roughly. But do you have to do that if you take on a bad contract in exchange for picks? I.e. - do the picks count like money in the equation? And If you do have to swap salaries, do we have anyone we can offer up? Walton? Boobie?

A team under the cap can absorb any amount of salary that fits under the cap. The big issue the Cavs are facing it is going to be difficult to take on salary while maintain max cap space for the monster 2014 FA class. That is why grabbing a contract like Marion or Granger (both final year deals) is the ideal move to fill the three.

OldDawg wrote:But the point is that these guys were elite QBs despite not being drafted (highly). In that light, you can make a point that you don't need to draft Tom Brady with the first pick in the draft to get an elite QB. These two guys, two of the best QBs in the history of the league, were not found with the #1 pick in the draft. They weren't even found in the (first 5 rounds of the) draft. You certainly can draft one (Peyton Manning) at #1.

^Fixed, finally, only because after several hours I've given up hope that e0's head will explode in response.

1) I promise you that there is not a single person in the history of TCF that values defensive basketball players more than me. Absolutely no one. Not one. Zero. This discussion for me is not about devaluing defensive players.

2) Yeah, I get your point in this Brady analogy, but I don't think its an adequate comparison for the discussion. This discussion started about drafting Noel because his strength was as a defensive rim protector, something the Cavs sorely need. When you compare a Kyrie Irving or an LBJ to a defensive rim protector, then defensive rim protector could be called somewhat of a role player by comparison. Rodman was a role player on the Bulls compared to Michael. Granted Noel has the potential to develop into MUCH more than than a role player. But to compare such a "role player" to the position of QB is not a good comparison. QB is absolutely 100% the most important position in football and would never be considered a role player. You wouldn't compare Rodman and Wallace to MJ or LBJ or likewise, a QB. Granted a defensive stud like Rodman is hugely critical to the success of a team and should never be underestimated, but one would ever compare it to the position of QB on a football team. That's MJ. The discussion from my prospective was that it pains me that we don't have a dominant guy on both ends available with the #1 pick. A QB, if you will, an MJ or LBJ. You certainly hope to get a dominant type QB player with the #1 pick. If the Browns have the #1 pick in the draft, every Browns backer in the country is hoping their is a great QB available, not some DB.

3) Part of my point in the discussion was not meant to devalue defensive players. My point was that when you want to argue to others the value of a defensive player in the NBA, you shouldn't be mentioning UDFAs in your argument. In so doing, you are devaluing them. When you use UDFAs to tell folks how important defensive players are, you are almost making the point for the other side of the argument. When you use UDFAs as part of your argument, you are kind of saying they can be found anywhere, because they were found as UDFAs. If you really want to make your argument for taking a defensive rim protector with the #1 pick, you should be naming defensive rim protectors that were taken with the #1 pick and how they panned out to bring their team numerous rings. That's my point.

Again, along the way in this discussion, many other aspects of Noel's game and his athleticism have been brought to the table to validate his being taken with the #1 pick in this draft. But the conversation started about him being primarily a defensive rim protector (and as such, kind of a role player). When you have the #1 pick in the draft, you hope to get more with that pick. A Duncan, a Durant, etc.

If the Browns have the #1 pick in the draft next year, and there is an outstanding franchise type QB available, there will be similar discussions about the QB vs Clowney. The Browns have been a QB-starved franchise since their return and if a franchise QB is at our fingertips and one of the best defensive prospects of the past decade is there too?? I think you take the QB. That doesn't devalue Clowney.

I am not arguing against Noel as much as I am about the presentation of the argument itself. I get your points completely. And I don't devalue D. Maybe Noel is Clowney to the Cavs. I would be happy with that!!!I am done with this argument as are you guys, I'm sure.

Last edited by OldDawg on Sat May 25, 2013 11:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"The nose of the bulldog has been slanted backwards so that he can breathe without letting go." -- Winston Churchill

UDFA or first pick doesn't matter, a player is a player period. Just because Ben Wallace was 6'7" (per his own admission, multiple times) so he didn't get into a real college doesn't mean shit in this discussion.

The best draft pick in the 2010 class right now went tenth. Going back further one of five all stars in the 2009 class went in the second round. Talking about this stupid UDFA shit like it matters makes my head hurt, badly.

Tyson Chandler, Camby, etc.... have all been brought up in this discussion and all were top five picks. Ben Wallace being a UDFA means nothing to this discussion at all on either side of the coin and the dumb fuck kman is the one that pretending like it does. I implore you to go back and actually look at draft results before talking out your ass about rim protectors growing on trees.

Yeah, you always want LBJ or Kyrie. Great point. That doesn't exist this year, deal with it and end this fucking retarded discussion.

And the fact that you've posted this much about some essentially nothing more than bitching about Andrew Wiggins coming out in 2014 is as dumb as kman's original point. The draft is the draft and you deal with what is in front of you. Positions, etc, don't fucking matter

BTW: in case if you forget, you injected yourself into an argument where kfuck said defenders don't matter and then said Ben Wallace being a UDFA was relevant. Why you decided to jump into the middle of replies to him to bitch about presentation as if we were writing a long form for you is as silly as crying about no LBJ being out there this year.

e0y2e3 wrote:BTW: in case if you forget, you injected yourself into an argument where kfuck said defenders don't matter and then said Ben Wallace being a UDFA was relevant. Why you decided to jump into the middle of replies to him to bitch about presentation as if we were writing a long form for you is as silly as crying about no LBJ being out there this year.

I did inject into the middle of that. Guilty. And accordingly, you have lumped me and kman in together in your response and in so doing, I think you have missed the purpose of my points because you have blended me with him. You think I'm on kman's side of this discussion. I am not making kman's argument. I am really not. But that's fine if you think so. I can see why you might think so.

The only real reason I even made my last post, was to say you can't compare the position of QB to DB (which I think Hoodoo had done). Thats it. I think that's a fair statement on my part. We Browns fans get that. In my length to clarify that point, you think I'm making kman's argument again. On the contrary. He devalued defenders completely. I am not. But that's fine.

"The nose of the bulldog has been slanted backwards so that he can breathe without letting go." -- Winston Churchill

How many guys are available in this draft that you would be willing to pay such a price for to move into the top 8 or so? Porter, Pido, Bennett?

I'm just trying to point out that the Cavs simply have too many picks to even fit on the roster. If you figure TT, Kyrie, Waiters, Zeller and Andy take up five roster spots, you have 11 picks in the next three years to fill out the remaining seven. One of which is a #1 overall. And I'd personally rather turn those remaining 10 picks into two, three or four stud players rather than waste them on bench fillers.

Assuming we draft Noel, we'd still need a stud SF (Porter), a backup PG who can play defense, and another SG/SF hybrid defensive guy. Both of the later may already be on the roster or could be found in FA or through a trade. That would give you a nice nine man rotation. Four bigs who can pound the glass, a nice wingman who can create his own shot at the 3 (Porter), and a lethal backcourt in Kyrie and Dion.

Bottom line, they have so many assets they're almost forced into making a move. And it's not gonna be trading the #1 pick for MORE future draft choices. That would be going the exact wrong direction.

How many guys are available in this draft that you would be willing to pay such a price for to move into the top 8 or so? Porter, Pido, Bennett?

I'm just trying to point out that the Cavs simply have too many picks to even fit on the roster. If you figure TT, Kyrie, Waiters, Zeller and Andy take up five roster spots, you have 11 picks in the next three years to fill out the remaining seven. One of which is a #1 overall. And I'd personally rather turn those remaining 10 picks into two, three or four stud players rather than waste them on bench fillers.

Assuming we draft Noel, we'd still need a stud SF (Porter), a backup PG who can play defense, and another SG/SF hybrid defensive guy. Both of the later may already be on the roster or could be found in FA or through a trade. That would give you a nice nine man rotation. Four bigs who can pound the glass, a nice wingman who can create his own shot at the 3 (Porter), and a lethal backcourt in Kyrie and Dion.

Bottom line, they have so many assets they're almost forced into making a move. And it's not gonna be trading the #1 pick for MORE future draft choices. That would be going the exact wrong direction.

I agree. Particularly in the NBA, it is quality over quantity.

"The nose of the bulldog has been slanted backwards so that he can breathe without letting go." -- Winston Churchill

e0y2e3 wrote:BTW: in case if you forget, you injected yourself into an argument where kfuck said defenders don't matter and then said Ben Wallace being a UDFA was relevant. Why you decided to jump into the middle of replies to him to bitch about presentation as if we were writing a long form for you is as silly as crying about no LBJ being out there this year.

Also, although I didn't agree with kman's points, when you replied to him, I honestly had this visual of the dude in England with the meat clever. You had the clever and kman was in the street. I almost posted a pic of that, but I didn't think it would be very tasteful, since that is so current. I kind of felt guilty just being a bystander watching some guy get chopped up. I had to do something. I had to jump in and take some of the blows.

"The nose of the bulldog has been slanted backwards so that he can breathe without letting go." -- Winston Churchill

OldDawg wrote:Random point: Is it just me, or is there an inordinate amount of size in this draft. I counted 19 guys 6'10 or taller projected to be drafted. Up to 12 in the first round.

Its a big draft this year. 2014 looks to be a smaller, guard oriented draft, with DX having only 4 guys 6'10" or over going in the 1st round next year. Last year it was 8 players in the 1st at or over 6'10".

Is there any way to get Boogie Cousins without giving up the #1? He's insane but you have to roll the dice on talent like that in a small market. If we could do something like Thompson, 19, and 31, sign me up.

"Well then I guess there's only one thing left to do...win the whole, f***in', thing."- Jake Taylor

If Cleveland pulls off both trades in these scenarios, then it'd be left with a 2013-14 lineup of Irving, Cousins, Thompson, Deng and a 3-and-defensive wing to be named. Beyond that, Cleveland would still have nothing but team options and Alonzo Gee's $3 million player option on the books for 2014-15. Deng's cap hold and a possible extension for Cousins might mean that Grant has to move some pieces around to make room for a max deal for James, but it could be done and the foundation in place would be superior to anything the King had to work with in his first stint with the Cavaliers.

Besides, even if the James plan is a pipedream, an Irving-Cousins-Thompson-Deng core is a really nice starting point for a team on the rise...

Also, Chad Ford puts the Nerlens Noel weight issue in perspective and intimates that if Cavs don't select Noel that Gilbert's desire (impatience? pipe dream?) to make the playoffs is the likely reason as to why: http://es.pn/18z3lJy

If Cleveland pulls off both trades in these scenarios, then it'd be left with a 2013-14 lineup of Irving, Cousins, Thompson, Deng and a 3-and-defensive wing to be named. Beyond that, Cleveland would still have nothing but team options and Alonzo Gee's $3 million player option on the books for 2014-15. Deng's cap hold and a possible extension for Cousins might mean that Grant has to move some pieces around to make room for a max deal for James, but it could be done and the foundation in place would be superior to anything the King had to work with in his first stint with the Cavaliers.

Besides, even if the James plan is a pipedream, an Irving-Cousins-Thompson-Deng core is a really nice starting point for a team on the rise...

What's the word on Cuz? Head case or riser?

And while you do not win titkes with Lual Deng, you can be pretty damn good with Noel, Irving, Waiters and Deng. Sign me up.

Easily the worst trade scenario i've seen yet. Headcase on a team that NEEDS to move him, and you're giving them 2 of your top 4 players. (Assuming Noel is the #1, he would instantly be in your top 4 with Dion, Andy, and Kyrie)

Cavs are in the drivers seat financially in a market where they need greater quantity and less quality. I expect them to get the SF in FA, draft Noel, and either take Caldwell-Pope, Karasev, etc to be the swingman off the bench.

Resign Livingston, and try to get Ellington back at a reasonable price.

Go play ball, and chase that 8 seed.

Check me out at Dawgsbynature, where I write stuff, or @twitter as Josh Finney.

Here's the best snippet from Peek's ESPN Insider post. It's Nerrrrrrrrrlens all day. Every day.

The weight issue is quickly becoming a non-issue. Noel weighed in at 206 pounds at the draft combine, creating a bit of a furor. Calipari told me that Dr. Andrews actually recommended Noel lose weight to help speed up the ACL recovery. Calipari said Noel weighed 222 pounds when he was injured. Noel told me in Chicago the number was actually 228. He weighed 215 pounds when he came to Kentucky. Assuming that he gained between 7-13 pounds at UK -- and assuming full-time training before the draft could have easily added another five pounds to his frame -- Noel would've come into the camp weighing between 227 and 233 pounds. At those numbers, he would have been heavier than Anthony Davis when he was drafted -- and the issue would completely go away.

I'd do the Bulls Deng/AV trade in a heartbeat. Guy must have been high on crack thinking Cousins + baggage is worth the #1 by itself, let alone the #1 + 2 starters/1 top 5 draft pick.

The problem with the AV trade is that you're giving up a GREAT contract and a draft asset for a one year rental.

It's a gamble and a gamble at a position you'd be really likely to gamble on a better player when Deng is a FA next year. Also, why in Da Fuck would a team with Taj and Noah want Andy? I'd much prefer giving up 2nd round picks and using cap space to bail out Indy or Dallas with Granger or Marion. Yeah, Granger is the better player, but one year rental and all.

As to Cousins, there's a kid that could average 25 and 13. There's also a kid that refuses to play any D. That feels like a LOT to pay for a gamble as large as him. It's an interesting gamble though.

e0y2e3 wrote:And yeah, as I told OldDawg already, anyone hiding behind Noel being 206 when he played at 225 last year is just being disingenuous and bending arguments to suit their whims.

Its as if you'd written that quote from ESPN days ago! Word for word. And btw someone else made a major point of his weight. My major point was both-ends-of-floor.

I don't know. At first thought, I think I'd hesitate to trade away any potential from a core of youth (trade #2). We have a chance to put together a nucleus of young guys that could grow into something special for the long haul (barring FA bailing). We had a core of youth in Daugherty, Price, HotRod, Harper that was pretty darn decent before we traded for LarryBirdII.

Cousins is young, but he could be a cancer to team chemistry.

I don't want Cav leadership to covet the playoffs so much that we go short-term improvements that might essentially lower our ceiling as a team.

Modern era small market teams that built with youth and added pieces and stability. San Antonio had a couple of early great drafts in this run. OKC got Durant and Westbrook. We might not have a Duncan or a Durant, but we already have an Irving. PG is a huge piece. If Noel grows into something special....

We can add a significant piece or two in this draft. Add a couple more veteran pieces in FA...

"The nose of the bulldog has been slanted backwards so that he can breathe without letting go." -- Winston Churchill

“The weight issue is quickly becoming a non-issue,” says Ford. ”Noel weighed in at 206 pounds at the draft combine, creating a bit of a furor. Calipari told me that Dr. Andrews actually recommended Noel lose weight to help speed up the ACL recovery. Calipari said Noel weighed 222 pounds when he was injured. Noel told me in Chicago the number was actually 228.”

I recently read that Chad Ford and some others at ESPN ranked the Cavs #8 in their future power rankings. It was an insider article so I only received a 3rd party summary of it. From what I understand their time horizon is 3 years and the ratings are based on current roster, future picks, current commited salary and management evaluation.

I am proabbly overly optimistic in terms of the Cavs vs most of the people I know but I don't think I would have rated them quite as high as #8. Particularly since next year we will probably still be a middle of the pack team at best.

It's good to see experts like Chad Ford respecting the organization and being optimistic about our future. Cavs have come a long way in 2-3 years. The first year after the decision there wasn't much they could do since they didn't have picks and since free agency was pretty much already over. So in reality the did a ton in just over 2 years.

YahooFanChicago wrote:Cavs have come a long way in 2-3 years. The first year after the decision there wasn't much they could do since they didn't have picks and since free agency was pretty much already over. So in reality the did a ton in just over 2 years.

I love your optimism. But they did have the 3rd worst record in the NBA this past year. What they have done consistently well, is suck, and insodoing, acquiring high draft picks. If they had done a ton in the past 2+ years, they would not have the 3rd worst record in the NBA.

However, I do share your optimism for improvement. But it is not necessarily based on us doing great things. It is based on being bad the past few years and the ping pong balls being kind to us. We have acquired a few extra picks that hopefully we can turn into something. And I like some of the role players we picked up this year.

"The nose of the bulldog has been slanted backwards so that he can breathe without letting go." -- Winston Churchill

Around #8 in the future rankings is fine when considering cap space and sheer number of draft picks/young assets.

Even if Waiters ends up unable to play next to Kyrie long term, assets like him will always have good to very good value in the league. Worst case this team will have four top five picks, a bunch more first round picks and has more cap space than anyone in the league. They also have Kyrie.

If you can't turn that into a consistent top four playoff team you really, really suck at your job.

Olddawg, I agree with you that I am optimistic and maybe too optimistic given the way the team folded in the last 1/3 of the season.

I do give the Cavs management much more credit though than just saying that they succeeded at being bad and benefited from ping pong ball luck. With our own picks we didn't benefit from luck other than in this upcoming draft. In the other drafts we ended-up with equal or worse picks than our record (so no lucky ping pong balls on our own picks). The Kyrie ping pong ball was actually the Clippers ping pong ball and we only had it as a result of fleecing the clips. So we absolutely got lucky with that ping pong ball but we only had it through a good trade. It may be cliche but I say our FO made their own luck on that one.

Almost none of us liked the TT or Waiters picks but so far they seem to be quite solid at this point. Granted, it is early days still.

The Memphis trade was also a real winner.

I also give Grant and the FO a lot of credit for being patient and collecting long term assets as opposed to trying to be quick and trying to get back into the playoffs quickly. I think there was probably a lot of presure on them (particularly from a very pissed-off, post decision Gilbert) to get better and competitive fast. So far they have taken a longer-term approach and fought off the temptation to find quick fixes.

To me the only potentially questionable thing they did was to hold on to Andy so long. There is some defendable logic supporting why they didn't pull the trigger on trading him when he was healthy and productive but there is also an argument that supports trading him when they had the chance.

The next 12 months is going to tell us a lot more. But I like what they have done so far.

YahooFanChicago wrote:Olddawg, I agree with you that I am optimistic and maybe too optimistic given the way the team folded in the last 1/3 of the season.

I do give the Cavs management much more credit though than just saying that they succeeded at being bad and benefited from ping pong ball luck. With our own picks we didn't benefit from luck other than in this upcoming draft. In the other drafts we ended-up with equal or worse picks than our record (so no lucky ping pong balls on our own picks). The Kyrie ping pong ball was actually the Clippers ping pong ball and we only had it as a result of fleecing the clips. So we absolutely got lucky with that ping pong ball but we only had it through a good trade. It may be cliche but I say our FO made their own luck on that one.

Almost none of us liked the TT or Waiters picks but so far they seem to be quite solid at this point. Granted, it is early days still.

The Memphis trade was also a real winner.

I also give Grant and the FO a lot of credit for being patient and collecting long term assets as opposed to trying to be quick and trying to get back into the playoffs quickly. I think there was probably a lot of presure on them (particularly from a very pissed-off, post decision Gilbert) to get better and competitive fast. So far they have taken a longer-term approach and fought off the temptation to find quick fixes.

To me the only potentially questionable thing they did was to hold on to Andy so long. There is some defendable logic supporting why they didn't pull the trigger on trading him when he was healthy and productive but there is also an argument that supports trading him when they had the chance.

The next 12 months is going to tell us a lot more. But I like what they have done so far.

All good points. I guess I was responding to the "we've come a long way," as if it is showing on the court, when the point that is being made is that in the past couple years we have positioned ourselves to become good. Agreed. Now let's get it done!!

"The nose of the bulldog has been slanted backwards so that he can breathe without letting go." -- Winston Churchill

Despite a limited skill set, his length and athleticism make him a terrific finisher at the rim and give him the potential to be a legitimate weapon in transition, on the offensive glass, as a cutter and slicing to the basket in the pick-and-roll. With the ability contribute in those areas Noel projects to be an effective complimentary offensive player. However, finding him on the extreme low end of the spectrum in the quantity of his offensive productions as a college freshman should raise some concerns about the size of the load he could shoulder at that end of the floor. Even compared to other defense-first big men, his current level of development raises some pretty big red flags.

Every day the Cavs are "interested" in someone else with the first pick. I keep thinking that this is Grant's team leaking stuff just to keep everyone guessing but since we have the first pick why is that necessary?

Is this situation:

(1) Grant planting rumors since he thinks it may make other teams think we are drafting "their guy" and drive up the value of the first pick so they can trade it?

(2) Some bullshit made up by reporters who know nothing more than we do and are just trying to get hits and sell newspapers?

(3) Agents making-up shit to try to drive up the value of "their guy"?

(4) All of the above?

If it's #1 it seems relatively unproductive since we have the first pick.

Until the draft experts started putting Noel at the top of the board, the Cavs were generally regarded as NEEDing a small forward more than anything else. How has that changed? Just because the Cavs are drafting No.1 and Noel is available? So all of a sudden the Cavs NEED a shot-blocking center with no apparent offensive skills?

jerryroche wrote:Until the draft experts started putting Noel at the top of the board, the Cavs were generally regarded as NEEDing a small forward more than anything else. How has that changed? Just because the Cavs are drafting No.1 and Noel is available? So all of a sudden the Cavs NEED a shot-blocking center with no apparent offensive skills?

Drafting for NEED with the overall first pick would be, shall we say, so "Cavalier."

I was in Orlando over the weekend. The Magic (locally known as the Tragic) are now hinting that they want to deal down for No.2, like many people are saying the Cavs should try to deal down from No.1.

It's pretty common knowledge that there's not a perceived "value" at the top of the draft, that "value" comes into play lower in the draft where there's depth.

If ever there was a year, this might be the year when teams at the top of the draft defy convention and draft for NEED rather than BPA, because up there the BPA might not be all that good. Just sayin'.